Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Will Conservatives Fight Each Other for the Next Four Years?
I have no idea what will happen over the next month. It’s possible but unlikely that President Trump will be re-elected; it’s also likely that Joe Biden will fill that seat; his winning this election fills me with fear and dread.
But to me, even worse than watching an elderly man who has cognitive problems and misguided ideas become President will be watching the Conservatives at each other’s throats. I foresee those who enthusiastically support Trump holding angry grudges against those who believed that Trump could not overcome the odds or beat back the fraud. And I can imagine those who believed the odds were long will be hated by those who believed that fraud should have been uncovered and Trump should have won.
This outcome is a lose-lose proposition for Conservatives everywhere.
Why do I bring this issue up now? Because in one sense, it doesn’t matter what the results are: we could waste our energy berating each other, blaming the system, and condemning those who were on the opposite side of us.
I’m also raising this issue now because we must focus on the real potential catastrophe: Democrats may very well be in charge of the government at one level or another and their dominance could destroy our country.
Now I will admit that I’m not fond of watching people fight with each other, verbally or otherwise (although I did enjoy the original Karate Kid). But the stakes are too high for us to get sidetracked and fall into Republican reticence of being Mr. Nice Guys or giving up the farm. Instead of fighting with each other over the past, let’s try the following:
- Make sure one way or another that a highly credible commission is established to study the results of the election, identify the fraud that occurred, find the mismanagement that was pervasive, and identify solutions. This effort will require identifying which steps should be proposed for the federal government to oversee, and which should be given to the states. If possible, the recommendations should include penalties for breaking or mismanaging the rules. The committee should be bipartisan and should preferably include people who are no longer in government, but have credibility on both sides of the aisle.
- Stop crying over spilled milk, no matter who wins. It will have been done. Arguing amongst ourselves is just another kind of distraction and will stall any progress on the part of Republicans. I frankly don’t care if you feel there was massive fraud or if you believe there was fraud, but not enough to make a difference. (I believe the truth is somewhere in the middle.) It’s history. Finished. Done.
- Let’s figure out the next steps for the Republicans that go beyond fighting the Democrats or re-litigating the election. We need to revamp totally the principles of Conservatism. We need to give up on old hopes that will be lost for the future, such as small government. We need to figure out how to educate people about US history and its goals in moving forward. We need to determine how to best engage people in America and build enthusiasm for 2024.
- We must explore the psychological impact of this election and be honest about its effect on ourselves and the people. Each of us should take a good hard look at ourselves and ask what really motivates our antagonism toward our colleagues. I learned a good lesson that is almost always true when it comes to human motivation. We become angry when two aspects of our psyche are challenged: being right and looking good. That means when someone accuses us of being wrong, we defend ourselves, insisting that we are right. It doesn’t matter whether we are “really” right or not; we must protect ourselves from those who question us. “Looking good” describes those characteristics that we value because we think they make us “look good”; they are what you value about yourself, not necessarily what someone else appreciates about us. That means when a person violates your important beliefs about your looking good—being smart, being right, being ethical, being educated—you will have a strong negative reaction and even fight back. I know intimately the limitations of these reactions!
Once we realize that our reactions to others’ challenging us are based on our irrational fears of being discounted, it’s much easier to disregard what they say about us. For example, some men like to tell me I’m reacting “emotionally” to something. Most women hate to be told that; I love it because I can respond by saying, “You’re right! I am emotional. But I’m also smart and knowledgeable.” That usually stops the attack.
* * * * *
My hope for all of us is that we don’t move into the next four years with a chip on our shoulders. Let’s not attack each other; let’s not spend our time in useless arguments. Instead, let’s transform our anger into passion; our concerns into dedication for America; our frustration into a laser-sharp focus. Let’s work together. Let’s help each other.
Let’s set the example of what it means to be proud Americans.
Published in Politics
I’m kind of with @drewofwisconsin on this. These two groups, whatever labels we give them, have different world views, different values, and different goals. I’m not endorsing nastiness, but I don’t seem them reuniting, and I tend to think they shouldn’t. Hash it out; have the clarifying debates.
I don’t see a lasting division there. I see a lasting division between those who supported Trump and those who supported Biden. That’s a wide gap to cross, especially considering some of the things that have been said.
There are still votes being counted; legal challenges that haven’t been settled; recounts to be conducted. I’m in favor of letting those things run their course, if only to call attention to whatever fraud is revealed. There are penalties in place now. Reforming election procedures and recommending new penalties is fine. But I think a deep dive into current fraud is necessary to understand the problems, and I’d like to see the penalties in place now being enforced.
Giving up on small government is giving up on Conservatism, in my estimation.
I think if a young woman is sufficiently hurt by a guy, this sentiment is acceptable . . .
Fabulous! This is an excellent start to a productive discussion, Drew. These are the kinds of questions we need to ask ourselves. We don’t need to reach agreement in the early part of our discussion. Just in this one comment, you’ve given me some great ideas to chew on. Well done!
Yeah, we have to fight the true Scotsman argument. Too often I see the “true Christian” argument used the same way. It does raise the question of how many non-conservative principles or positions on key issues a person has before he can no longer be called “conservative” . . .
Well said. All of which means it’s not going to resolve with Donald Trump leaving the White House whenever that may be.
The country started with people who’d lived/worked alongside each other splitting apart, some adamant about remaining British while others longed for freedom. Have to ask myself, is ‘British’ of yesteryear equivalent to globalist of today? I sincerely hope not. I like the United in USA, always been proud American is not a race, ethnicity, etc. but people different in many ways united by the common thread of being American.
No Bryan. You must fight them. The NeverTrump fools are taking actions to destroy America and they must be opposed.
Regarding Dave Rubin, I still recall his comment about how, as a gay married man who doesn’t consider himself a conservative, he’s now labeled “alt-right” by the leftists because he favors free speech and free inquiry. A strange evolution for sure.
I’m not disagreeing, @dong, but what does it mean “to fight them”? For example, I had a couple of Never Trumpers who harangued for a while on one of my posts, and then I told them to leave. Technically they didn’t have to leave. But they did. One way to fight them is to not give them a voice, and that includes giving them legitimacy by arguing with them; I think when we engage them, we give them power; I don’t care to do that.
I feel compelled to make what might seem to be a subtle distinction, but it’s not to me. There’s a difference between getting involved in a brawl and arguing passionately. If you can’t tell the difference, the next four years will be difficult for you.
If conservatives/Republicans didn’t have circular firing squads, they wouldn’t have firing squads.
I think the point of commonality among non-Leftists Americans is the US Constitution. That’s what it’s coming down to, defending the Bill of Rights. I don’t see much (any?) room for agreement with Democrats at this point because everything they support and do attacks those freedoms to some degree.
If US Constitution is what we’re fighting for, it should also guide us in resisting the Left. The Left does what they do because they know they can (less under current administration). They need to be shown they cannot, not just told from a microphone on camera. One reason I like Rick Grenell is because he refuses to accept the politically correct line as a given done deal. Well spoken, wields truth like a sword and transparency as a shield. Methodical yet proactive. Uses Constitution as a guide to GET RESULTS.
I’d be wary of believing anything I’m reading right now. The press is busy kissing up to the Biden administration to get access to it. At the same time, the press is also trying to lull the public into feeling comfortable with the press’s choice, Joe Biden.
The Trump administration held back a lot of the press organizations who are now excited to be back in the Washington game.
Before deciding how you feel about the Republicans who went over to the other side this past year, you really need to wait six months to see how we’re doing as a country.
Every Republican looking at what is happening now should be formulating his or her own vision of what a healthy United States will look like. What do you want?
Then you’ll know whether or not you can work with the Republicans who supported Biden. Were they right or wrong? We will be able to make that determination ourselves.
If you are not feeling as anxious today as you skim the day’s headlines as you were two weeks ago or two months ago, some of that rise and fall in your blood pressure is probably due to the press coverage of this election.
The only way to protect your brain from the press effect (my new term) is to have your own goals in front of you at all times.
The left and the few NTs I still see call us “Trumpists.” That’s OK with me because I trust very few Republicans or Democrats. Codevilla explained it well.
https://spectator.org/americas-ruling-class/
I don’t care for Trump’s mannerisms and cannot watch him give a speech but he kept promises and that is all I care about.
I think it’s the sneering condescension from the political class toward the citizen class that’s really increased the divide. Our rulers loathe the people they strive to rule. That’s a recipe for revolution.
The last 5 or 6 years have really turned the conservative or “right of center” world upside down. I remember back in 2004 when I was a volunteer for the George W. Bush reelection in Colorado. One of the issues George W Bush advocated was a constitutional amendment making marriage one man and one woman, anticipating that the judiciary and some states would embrace same sex marriage.
At the time, traditional marriage seemed like a winning issue for the GOP. In referendums around the country, defining marriage as one man, one woman won by large majorities. Even in California in 2008 while Obama beat McCain by 23 points, an amendment for traditional marriage was enacted by the voters.
Gradually, according to the polls (oh, and we know how reliable the polls are LOL) public opinion on same sex marriage changed. After the 2012 election, Minnesota’s legislature enacted same sex marriage. Minnesota wasn’t the first state to do this. But it did indicate the public opinion had changed, at least somewhat.
Then came the Obergefell v Hodges US Supreme Court decision and we ended up with same sex marriage in all 50 states while the polls (if they can be believed, not a certainty) showed that over 60 percent of Americans supported same sex marriage.
But same sex marriage is just one issue where it seemed as though what was once a radical, far left idea became mainstream. It was as though the Earth had shifted under the feet of conservatives.
The nomination of Donald Trump in 2016 was a shock to me because I never believed that Republican primary voters would support someone who donated so much money to so many far Left Democrats like Harry Reid, Terry McAuliffe and Anthony Weiner. When Trump did secure the nomination, I wondered if the Republican party had left me or if I had left the party.
I stayed a Republican and continued to vote straight Republican tickets, even if I skipped the presidential races of 2016 and 2020.
But I think most of us do believe that the United States we knew in 2004 is not the United States we currently see in 2020. Things have changed. That’s why the debate here is so acrimonious. So much change. We are all disoriented, trying to make sense of our new surroudnings. It’s not easy.
For many of the people of those times, remaining British was remaining free – many of the Tories found that even trying to stay out of things wasn’t good enough for some “patriots” and found their houses burned down and their lands commandeered.
It helps to try to put yourself in the shoes of others and try to see the events of their days through their eyes. For many, the patriots were scary rebels who seemed to be mouthing platitudes about “freedom” that seemed really to be little more than cover for different sorts of repression. Only the passage of time proved whether the fears of the day were prescient or foolish for both sides.
Moving to the present day, we have a deep divide over what it means to be free or what it means to be repressed, and these are fundamental to people’s mindsets. This informs what each side conceives of as being a “real American”, and it is not too far to say that these views are matters of faith at their core.
There’s an article I read yesterday, I’ll have to see if I can find it again, where a historian is suggesting not only this but an over-production and underutilization of elites, which further breeds resentment and revolution.
Can’t look for it now – am about to head out. Will try to remember later.
The most important seven words in the post…the abyss is closer than ever (see popular expression about “deck chairs”).
@skipsul I think this is what you were talking about
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2020/12/can-history-predict-future/616993/
Elites do too much better than the “normals” we make more “elites” than we have elite jobs, so the underutilized elites wind up joining with the “normals” to fight the ruling Elites.
Excellent points, Mim. I like Grenell, too, for the reasons you say. We need more like him!
It isn’t easy, @heavywater, and I expect it will get even harder before we get clarity. But I think that’s what we’re called to do.
Either this is a really good thread or I’m overly verbose today (I leave you to judge how much of which @susanquinn since it’s your OP :-)
Maybe @arahant rule #8 could apply to some CoC concerns: “Do not reject the bad [or merely objectionable] with vehemence. It gives it energy. Simply dismiss it.” It was a great day when I figured out I could ignore my little brother’s efforts to get me going :-) Sometimes a referee needs to knock a few proverbial heads together for the benefit of the many. Sometimes the only waters the peacemakers can calm are their own. People have to want to learn, change, grow. (I’m about to run outta platitudinals here LOL.)
Wheat and chaff gonna separate, Susan. We may be surprised at who ends up in which pile.
So, conservatives and Leftists both eat their own: one facing forward, the other in the back? Since folks like Dave Rubin find us so much more welcoming, maybe we should treat each other like ex-Lefties….
BTW all, I’m thinking we need another word for non-Leftist. Rightest?
I do think that there are disagreements within the right of center political arena, disagreements that would exist even if Trump had never entered politics.
Take NATO. One could argue that the United States should avoid any and all alliances, including NATO. I don’t hold that view myself. But I can see how some would take that position.
Trade. Some could argue that no one should be allowed to purchase any product or service produced from outside the borders of the United States if there is some way to purchase it inside the United States. Call this economic patriotism. You should purchase a car produced in the US, not from Germany, Mexico, Japan or South Korea or anywhere else.
I don’t hold that view either. But if you were in the US auto industry, this might have some appeal to you.
Trump said in the first Republican presidential primary debate in 2015 (when there were still about 16 candidates) that he would not cut Medicare or Social Security and he also said that single payer health care works well in Scotland.
I disgree. But I can understand why people would agree with Trump.
So, there will be disagreements. There is no getting around that.
And I think we need to learn to live with that reality. We must learn to handle the tensions that are inevitable. Otherwise, we are no better than the Left.
Sane comes to mind
Amazing how many straw men you can construct in one post.
Sure, but there can be middle ground on some of this. An alliance with Poland and Italy as “important” European allies might make sense. But maybe Rand Paul was right that adding Montenegro, a country of like 600,000 people with no true import, might not make sense. Are we really going to war with Russia over this country? If not they have no business in NATO, since we added them to NATO we are saying we will send our soldiers to die to protect this tiny county.
Reagan wanted free trade. He also thought that their were some industries that, for economic or national security reasons, should be protected. The USA needed its own source of steel, micro processors and auto manufacturing. Not that you could not buy these things from Japan but that the supply from Japan could not be and a level and price that could destroy the domestic production.
I realize that for your point you needed things to be direct opposites. The problem is that in these policy areas there is not usually black and white but black and grey.
Sure. But there can still be vehement disagreement if one person supports an alliance with France, Germany and the UK while someone else supports those alliances plus an alliance with almost all of Eastern Europe and a multitude of Asian nations.
Similarly for free trade. I personally think we should have free trade in sugar and Americans should be allowed to purchase sugar, tariff free, from the Carribean. But the US sugar industry opposes this, for obvious reasons.
But my main point is that two people can call themselves conservative but have different priorities and perhaps even different views on various issues.
I was heavily influenced by William F. Buckley and Milton Friedman in the 1980s. Other people are influenced by people with completely different priorities.